perhaps ironically, "polls are self-fulfilling" is the OPPOSITE of the correct conclusion from primary season (think about it)
-
-
but it's problematic to make (imo) a weak but more persuasive argument and fall back to the stronger but less persuasive.
-
My tweet gave one reason a Stein vote is beneficial. It did not presume to say that's the only reason or prime reason I'd vote for her.
-
am I presuming incorrect that you think that argument is persuasive to people not already persuaded?
-
I hope it's persuasive to some people, especially those in states that typically are pretty safe for one or the other major-party candidate.
-
fair enough re: safe states. I just think you have an obligation not to use a moral argument based on unavailable outcomes.
-
I hope you will agree that there ARE consequences to the decision, and if the tipping point in an unsafe state is 1/
-
someone believing in an unavailable outcome, I think you own the consequences for making the crucial moral argument. 2/2
-
That's always been my intention, & my prime argument applies in swing states. I do not think 5% is unavailable, however.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.